Hellfire texts explained as annihilation

[Solo]

One sin against God almighty is worthy of eternal punishment and eternal fire because of the putrifying result on the righteous creation of God. None of us are worthy of anything else but eternal punishment and eternal fire. To think better of ourselves than that is a point in fact of the error that we adhere to which blocks our vision of reality.

 

[SputnikBoy]

One sin against God almighty is worthy of eternal punishment and eternal fire because of the putrifying result on the righteous creation of God. None of us are worthy of anything else but eternal punishment and eternal fire. To think better of ourselves than that is a point in fact of the error that we adhere to which blocks our vision of reality.

I don't know about you, Solo, but I never asked to be born. And yet, God allowed us all to be born into a sinful world knowing that we only have two choices. To accept God or not to accept God. But, unless we DO accept God we're to suffer literal eternal punishment? The 'punishment' hardly fits the 'crime', does it? Sorry, I just don't buy it and I don't believe the scriptures buy it either.

 

[Free]

However, if you really read 1 Corinthians 15, Free, you will see that Paul's emphasis to eternal life period is wrapped up in the resurrection not in an immortal soul at death. Immortality, death being conquered, the power of death being vanquished, all of these occur at the resurrection, not at death.

DON'T MISS THIS NEXT PART, FREE AND SOLO....

So if:

1) immortality is ONLY acheived at the resurrection,
2) and this immortality is finally realized in a new incorruptible body and not an unfleshy 'soul,
3) and this only occurs for the righteous (i.e. it is a gift of God)

then how can the wicked possibly have immortal souls or even immortal bodies that will burn forever?

Firstly, the question that Paul is answering is "But someone will ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" (vs. 35). Paul is speaking of the body only.

Secondly, I can't see where Paul states that this will occur for believers only. He simply states that the immortality of the body occurs at the resurrection. Both believers and unbelievers will be raised from the dead (Rev. 20:11-15).

The point is this: Jesus makes some statements along the lines of "Today you shall be with me in Paradise". He is consistent throughout the gospels in his claims that we live after we die, prior to the resurrection. The claims aren't many, but they're there. Jesus also states that there is punishment for those who are unbelievers, punishment that isn't annihilation. To say that Jesus was speaking of annihilation actually undermines virtually everything he stated about hell.

Paul on the other hand doesn't mention the soul, but the body.

 

[Drew]

Firstly, the question that Paul is answering is "But someone will ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" (vs. 35). Paul is speaking of the body only.

It appears to me that you may be pre-supposing a conceptual, substantial distinction between "body" and "soul". I am not sure what the precise point of discussion between you and guibox is, but I want to say this: The 1 cor 15:35 passage can be engaged with one of two possible beliefs about the nature of a human person:

1. A person is constituted by a physical body and an immaterial soul
2. A person is constituted only by a physical body and what we call the "soul" is really just the "phenomenology" that accompanies the physical processes that go on in the brain.

If one comes to the passage with belief #1, of course you have the "room" to claim that Paul is speaking of the body only.

If one comes to the passage with belief #2, then one has to conclude that if someone is dead, then they are "really dead" - soul and all. So with such a belief the 1 Cor 15:35 describes a resurrection from "nothingness" if you will.

My general point is that, although it would be nice if things were so simple, the meaning that we impute to Biblical texts is extremely senstive to the beliefs that we bring to the act of interpretation.

Paul on the other hand doesn't mention the soul, but the body.

From the point of view of belief #2, it would not even be possible for Paul to have mentioned the soul, since belief # 2 entails denial of the existence of the immaterial soul.

 

[Solo]

One sin against God almighty is worthy of eternal punishment and eternal fire because of the putrifying result on the righteous creation of God. None of us are worthy of anything else but eternal punishment and eternal fire. To think better of ourselves than that is a point in fact of the error that we adhere to which blocks our vision of reality.

I don't know about you, Solo, but I never asked to be born. And yet, God allowed us all to be born into a sinful world knowing that we only have two choices. To accept God or not to accept God. But, unless we DO accept God we're to suffer literal eternal punishment? The 'punishment' hardly fits the 'crime', does it? Sorry, I just don't buy it and I don't believe the scriptures buy it either.

You are not in control to determine whether you are born or not; nor are you in control as to what happens to the lost. Your fleshly desire might be such that eternal punishment and eternal fire disgust you more than sin does; and it may be that the death of Jesus Christ is no biggy to you, compared to eternal punishment and eternal fire, but it is. The condemnation of man is so great and terrible that God sent his perfect and only son to become flesh and die on the cross and bodily resurrected so that we might live. If it were just that we ceased to exist, God could have just started over.

 

[guibox]

Firstly, the question that Paul is answering is "But someone will ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" (vs. 35). Paul is speaking of the body only.

Secondly, I can't see where Paul states that this will occur for believers only. He simply states that the immortality of the body occurs at the resurrection. Both believers and unbelievers will be raised from the dead (Rev. 20:11-15).

Paul on the other hand doesn't mention the soul, but the body.

But Free, this is an assumption that must be read into the passage. Paul never makes a dichotomy between the body and soul. Rather the emphasis is on resurrection to immortality. If the 'soul' is already immortal and has been residing in heaven, what need is there for a body resurrected from the grave?

Such thinking takes away the necessity Paul emphasises on the resurrection.

Let's look at the rest of the 1 Corinthians 15 to see what Paul is talking about. Please notice his words.

And if Christ be not raised then ye are yet in your sins, then those that have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. - vs 17,18

Before this Paul was showing how both resurrections (Christ and the last day) are wrapped up in the other. Without one, the other doesn't exist. He says 'Those that have fallen asleep in Christ have perished'.

Now we know that Christ died. According to traditional thought, our souls would be in heaven. However, Paul is showing that the resurrection is what avoids the perishing, not rapture at death.

Keep reading. It continues this thought of 'not perishing'...

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam die, even so in Christ shall be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward, they that are Christ's at His coming- vs 21-23

Do you see when all are saved from death? At the resurrection. In Christ all will be made alive...but not at death, Free! It is only at the resurrection that death is conquered for the righteous! There is no split between body and soul in these verses.

Keep reading...

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not? Let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die! - vs 32

Do you see the importance here? Paul is saying that if there is no resurrection, there is no eternal life. We might as well go and do whatever we want because there is no hope!

A strange thing to say if that eternal life is realized at death, don't you think?

So when this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shal be nrought tho pass the saying that it written; 'Death is swallowed up in victory!' - vs 54

If my soul goes to heaven at death, then death is swallowed up in victory for me then. However, this verse makes it plain that death...PERIOD is ONLY conquered by resurrection.

Free, you cannot read a soul/body split into these passages. Paul speaks of the WHOLE man.

Henceforth there is a crown of righteousness prepared for me at that day. And not just for me only but to all those who look forward to his coming - 2 Timothy 4:6-8

To Paul, receiving the reward occurs, not at death, but on the day of the resurrection for everyone!

Brothers and sisters, I would not have you to be ignorant concerning them which are asleep. That you sorrow not even as others who have no hope - 1 Thessalonians 4:13,14

Paul calls those who have died, 'asleep'. They cannot be asleep in their graves when their consciousness is alive in heaven. Notice that Paul says, 'That you sorrow not as others who have no hope'. If my loved one is in heaven at death, why should I sorrow? What is this hope? It is the resurrection. Paul is saying here and in 1 Corinthians boldly and clearly without any doubt.

WITHOUT THE RESURRECTION, THERE IS NO HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE!

How clear are Paul's words here! He then goes on to show the joy of the resurrection where eternal life and culmination of salvation history finally climaxes!

Oh Free, it is so clear what Paul and Christ teach if you'd merely open your eyes to see that the bible doesn't preach eternal life at death in the form of a disembodied soul, but at the resurrection of the dead where man is made alive and death is finally conquered for the christian!

God bless you in your search for truth.

 

[Free]

But Free, this is an assumption that must be read into the passage. Paul never makes a dichotomy between the body and soul. Rather the emphasis is on resurrection to immortality. If the 'soul' is already immortal and has been residing in heaven, what need is there for a body resurrected from the grave?

Such thinking takes away the necessity Paul emphasises on the resurrection.

Speaking of assumptions, on what grounds do you think that the immortal soul, if there is one, resides in heaven prior to the resurrection? Is this something that I have stated?

Now we know that Christ died.

And where was the Christ after he died? In the tomb for three days?

Free, you cannot read a soul/body split into these passages. Paul speaks of the WHOLE man.

But I haven't. My point is that Paul doesn't mention anything so one cannot automatically assume that we have no soul. It is a passage that does nothing for or against the belief in a soul. He simply speaks of the body, nothing more.

 

[CP_Mike]

But Free, this is an assumption that must be read into the passage. Paul never makes a dichotomy between the body and soul. Rather the emphasis is on resurrection to immortality. If the 'soul' is already immortal and has been residing in heaven, what need is there for a body resurrected from the grave?

Such thinking takes away the necessity Paul emphasises on the resurrection.

Speaking of assumptions, on what grounds do you think that the immortal soul, if there is one, resides in heaven prior to the resurrection? Is this something that I have stated?

Now we know that Christ died.

And where was the Christ after he died? In the tomb for three days?

Free, you cannot read a soul/body split into these passages. Paul speaks of the WHOLE man.

But I haven't. My point is that Paul doesn't mention anything so one cannot automatically assume that we have no soul. It is a passage that does nothing for or against the belief in a soul. He simply speaks of the body, nothing more.

What the Hebrews believed about the soul was it was life bound up with the body. The soul in biblical terms is not something that survives physical death. Guibox was making a comment that the soul is not something that 'contains our essence'. Scripture speaks about 'Rephaim' (shadows as a twilight exisitence for those in Sheol (Ps 88:10) so there is no extinction at death. The spirit of man returns to God at death (ecllesiates 12:7), but the soul (the life) goes forever at death (Dt12:23, Numbers 23:10).
So at resurrection, we receive new resurrection bodies.

 

[guibox]

But I haven't. My point is that Paul doesn't mention anything so one cannot automatically assume that we have no soul. It is a passage that does nothing for or against the belief in a soul. He simply speaks of the body, nothing more.

Then you truly did not read my post or the entire whole of 1 Corinthians 15 with open eyes. If you did, you'd see that Paul's emphasis to life eternal is only realized at the resurrection. Hence, the soul, as is traditionally taught, is not even an issue here but the whole restoration of man.

Why do I even bother trying?

 

[Heidi]

One sin against God almighty is worthy of eternal punishment and eternal fire because of the putrifying result on the righteous creation of God. None of us are worthy of anything else but eternal punishment and eternal fire. To think better of ourselves than that is a point in fact of the error that we adhere to which blocks our vision of reality.

I don't know about you, Solo, but I never asked to be born. And yet, God allowed us all to be born into a sinful world knowing that we only have two choices. To accept God or not to accept God. But, unless we DO accept God we're to suffer literal eternal punishment? The 'punishment' hardly fits the 'crime', does it? Sorry, I just don't buy it and I don't believe the scriptures buy it either.

And how is that any different from knowing that if you run in front of a speeding car you'll be killed? Out of anger that you could die, do you deliberatly ignore that principle and run in front of a speeding car? :o If not, then why do you deliberatly ignore the warning about hell and reject heaven? :o Sorry, but it doesn't appear that you're afraid enough of hell to be complaining about it. ;-)

 

[Drew]

Greetings CPMike (and others):

Could you possibly elaborate on what you mean when you refer to "a twilight existence" and "the spirit of man returns to God at death".

Here are my very general thoughts on this whole matter and I am interested in whether this lines up with yours and, if not, where the differences lie.

1. A human being is not "divisible" into "parts" such as body, spirit, and soul.

2. When a human being dies physically, s/he effectively cease to exist as a subject of conscious experience, except (a big except) that, loosely speaking, God retains the "information" needed to ultimately resurrect him/her "in His mind".

3. At the resurrection, all those who have been redeemed are re-constituted as "whole persons".

4. The non-redeemed are ultimately destroyed (annihilated)

I am kind of interested to know if you think it is possible that the "twilight existence" you refer to could refer to the state where we are "alive" only insofar as God as "stored" knowledge of us in order to later re-constitute us.

 

[Relic]

One sin against God almighty is worthy of eternal punishment and eternal fire because of the putrifying result on the righteous creation of God. None of us are worthy of anything else but eternal punishment and eternal fire. To think better of ourselves than that is a point in fact of the error that we adhere to which blocks our vision of reality.

I don't know about you, Solo, but I never asked to be born. And yet, God allowed us all to be born into a sinful world knowing that we only have two choices. To accept God or not to accept God. But, unless we DO accept God we're to suffer literal eternal punishment? The 'punishment' hardly fits the 'crime', does it? Sorry, I just don't buy it and I don't believe the scriptures buy it either.

And how is that any different from knowing that if you run in front of a speeding car you'll be killed? Out of anger that you could die, do you deliberatly ignore that principle and run in front of a speeding car? :o If not, then why do you deliberatly ignore the warning about hell and reject heaven? :o Sorry, but it doesn't appear that you're afraid enough of hell to be complaining about it. ;-)

Amen Heidi.


.

 

[Relic]

Greetings CPMike (and others):

Could you possibly elaborate on what you mean when you refer to "a twilight existence" and "the spirit of man returns to God at death".

Here are my very general thoughts on this whole matter and I am interested in whether this lines up with yours and, if not, where the differences lie.

1. A human being is not "divisible" into "parts" such as body, spirit, and soul.

2. When a human being dies physically, s/he effectively cease to exist as a subject of conscious experience, except (a big except) that, loosely speaking, God retains the "information" needed to ultimately resurrect him/her "in His mind".

3. At the resurrection, all those who have been redeemed are re-constituted as "whole persons".

4. The non-redeemed are ultimately destroyed (annihilated)

I am kind of interested to know if you think it is possible that the "twilight existence" you refer to could refer to the state where we are "alive" only insofar as God as "stored" knowledge of us in order to later re-constitute us.

With posts like this, this topic is just impossible for me to stay out of. :-?

Drew, where do you get your "theology" from? :o

Who tells you such things, or where do you get it from?
What scriptures do you have to back up what you are saying here in items 1, 2 and 4. ? Just curious where how you are able to compile such a list.


Thanks.
.

 

[Heidi]

The state of mind that a person is in on his deathbed is the stae that will exist through all of eternity. And that's why deathbed confessions are taken so seriously. If a person has not admitted the truth about his sins and relieved his conscience, his legacy will be unredeemed throughout all of eternity. It can never go away. That is hell.

Paul says that "flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." Only the Spirit of God that exists inside the individual will last forever because God is eternal and everlasting. And that is why those not born again of the Spirit simply cannot understand the eternal spirit inside of him. All he understands is flesh and blood.

 

[Drew]

Greetings CPMike (and others):

Could you possibly elaborate on what you mean when you refer to "a twilight existence" and "the spirit of man returns to God at death".

Here are my very general thoughts on this whole matter and I am interested in whether this lines up with yours and, if not, where the differences lie.

1. A human being is not "divisible" into "parts" such as body, spirit, and soul.

2. When a human being dies physically, s/he effectively cease to exist as a subject of conscious experience, except (a big except) that, loosely speaking, God retains the "information" needed to ultimately resurrect him/her "in His mind".

3. At the resurrection, all those who have been redeemed are re-constituted as "whole persons".

4. The non-redeemed are ultimately destroyed (annihilated)

I am kind of interested to know if you think it is possible that the "twilight existence" you refer to could refer to the state where we are "alive" only insofar as God as "stored" knowledge of us in order to later re-constitute us.

With posts like this, this topic is just impossible for me to stay out of. :-?

Drew, where do you get your "theology" from? :o

Who tells you such things, or where do you get it from?
What scriptures do you have to back up what you are saying here in items 1, 2 and 4. ? Just curious where how you are able to compile such a list.


Thanks.
.

Hi Relic:

I get my theology from what I would say is an investigation of the Scriptures as well as what I would hope is an application of principles of coherence, consistency, logic, and respect for the "data of life" - the empirical facts that the world gives us. I think that I can honestly say that I, more or less, think for myself - nobody has "told me such things"

I do not have much time but I should at least say something about your questions.

Regarding item 1: I think the Scriptures make a fairly strong case that there really is no "immaterial soul". Guibox knows a lot more about the Scriptures in respect to this, so I would refer you to his innumberable, well articulated posts on this topic. I also think that there are both "philosophical" and "historical" reasons for my belief. It does not seem explanatorily coherent (logically consistent) to posit the existence of an immaterial soul (or spirit). The reason: An immaterial entity, by definition, cannot interact with the physical to animate the human body as it must if it is to have any impact on the world of real experience. This should be a real challenge for "soul-ists", yet the matter is never addressed in these forums. I have also become aware of how powerfully western thought has been influenced by specifically Greek ideas about the dual nature of the human person. My (admittedly limited) reading suggests to me that the Hebrews had no such conception. I might suggest that many "traditionalists" get their theology from the Greeks (without even realizing it) rather than from the content of the Hebrew scriptures.

Regarding Item 2: This is an inference that I make in order to produce a logically self-consistent "theory" about how things work. There may well be no scriptures to support this idea, but there appear to be none that rule it out, either.

Regarding Item 4: Some biblical arguments for annihiliation have been made by guibox. To be honest, there have been very few serious attempts to engage these arguments - they seem to "bounce off" people. The fact that poeple do not directly engage these arguments suggests that they simply cannot - this adds credibility to the initial arguments for annihilationism. In addition, I have "moral" problems with the idea that God torments people for eternity. I cannot reconcile this with the idea of a loving God.

 

[CP_Mike]

Greetings CPMike (and others):

Could you possibly elaborate on what you mean when you refer to "a twilight existence" and "the spirit of man returns to God at death".

Here are my very general thoughts on this whole matter and I am interested in whether this lines up with yours and, if not, where the differences lie.

1. A human being is not "divisible" into "parts" such as body, spirit, and soul.

The Hebrews had a wholistic approach to Personhood. They regarded people as a totality or a unity, not the Greek concept of splitting people into Body, soul and spirit.In death, the Hebrews regarded a twilight existence in Sheol that the dead were not 'Nephesh', but 'Rephaim'. You can glean from these scriptures: Isa 14;10 and Job 3:17-19.

2. When a human being dies physically, s/he effectively cease to exist as a subject of conscious experience, except (a big except) that, loosely speaking, God retains the "information" needed to ultimately resurrect him/her "in His mind".

3. At the resurrection, all those who have been redeemed are re-constituted as "whole persons".

4. The non-redeemed are ultimately destroyed (annihilated)

I am kind of interested to know if you think it is possible that the "twilight existence" you refer to could refer to the state where we are "alive" only insofar as God as "stored" knowledge of us in order to later re-constitute us.

I do not know how God does it, but he promised us resurrection, but nowhere in Scripture is 'Nephesh' promised a life outside the physical body. The trouble is many Christians interpret from the Greek point of view the meaning of soul to what the bible teaches. So from a Hebrew point of view, the soul is simply the physical vital life of an organism wheter human or animal. You could say its the difference between someone who is asleep and a corpse.

 

[Free]

Just a quick question to keep this going: For whoever in here believes that God is triune, a trinity, did the Hebrews understand God in this way?

In case anyone is wondering, it seems that the strongest and most often used argument in this thread is that the Hebrew's understanding of "soul" was not as an immaterial entity and therefore our understanding should be the same.

I think you see where I am going with this and I'm sure I could find other examples. So why does this reasoning only apply to "soul" and not God? How does a possible lack of revelation and understanding of the Hebrews affect what we as Christians believe was revealed to us?

And remember that while the idea of an immaterial soul may be of Greek origin, it does not in any way mean that that understanding is false. I suppose if one wants to be consistent and reject Greek ideas one could still come to that conclusion, but it would be fallacious. ;)

I still think that guibox and Georges are quite wrong in insisting on a simple definition of "soul". A reading of all the 625 occurrences of nephesh in the OT will show that there are quite a large number of definitions and nuances that cannot be ignored. It really is not so simple.

 

[Vic C.]

It really is not so simple.

A profound but true statement Free.

About the Triune nature of God:

The Hebrews had many names for God, describing His many characteristics or attributes. From an 'outsiders' point of view, it could appear thay were referring to many Gods, but we know know they weren't. I believe they may have had an idea of what the Godhead was, but couldn't quite put their finger on it. A study of the word "elohim" may indicate this. All IMO, of course.

 

[guibox]

In case anyone is wondering, it seems that the strongest and most often used argument in this thread is that the Hebrew's understanding of "soul" was not as an immaterial entity and therefore our understanding should be the same

And remember that while the idea of an immaterial soul may be of Greek origin, it does not in any way mean that that understanding is false. I suppose if one wants to be consistent and reject Greek ideas one could still come to that conclusion, but it would be fallacious. ;)

This argument usually is the 'last resort' argument used by traditionalists when biblical support fails. The 'God revealed the truth to the Greeks, not the Hebrews' view.

So. God, with all the prophets and with all the inspiration gave them the wrong usage of the word 'soul'? I guess there were alot of confused saints who woke up in heaven not expecting to be there. "Lord! What is this? I thought we would be resurrected at the last day?" "Ssshhh! Don't tell anyone! I am waiting for a pagan culture to give the truth to!"

This reasoning is not only prepostrous, but it doesn't take into account the fact that the NT does't emphasise anything different. Paul agrees with Job about sleeping until the resurrection. Christ's word's echo Daniel's on the resurrection to life and judgement. The NT Christian concept of Hades was a continual application of the Hebrew Sheol. The usage of the term 'soul' to denote a 'human being' was still carried over into the NT.

Your ultimate problem, Free is that the NT doesn't contradict, but reaffirms the true nature of man and the resurrection to eternal life promoted in the OT.

I still think that guibox and Georges are quite wrong in insisting on a simple definition of "soul". A reading of all the 625 occurrences of nephesh in the OT will show that there are quite a large number of definitions and nuances that cannot be ignored. It really is not so simple.

Are any of these 'nuances' ever taken to mean "something that is immortal and thinking outside the body"? Please show the other meanings of the word 'nephesh' and in what context they are used.

That 'nephesh' means 'a living being' is of no doubt. So what you are saying is that 'nephesh' is also used to mean the exact polar opposite?

How can this be? Either the Hebrews believed in the nature of man in one way or the other. You can't have it both ways.

Free, just let go of your preconceived notions and let the scriptures explain itself.

 

[Drew]

I would like to summarize my thoughts on some "technical" matters re how we interpret concepts that are expressed in the scriptures (in this context, the concept at issue is that of the "soul"). Some of these thoughts are "my own", others I will shamelessly admit have been "adopted" from others. Please comments as you see fit.

1. When the word "soul" appears anywhere in the Scriptures, our efforts should focus on determining what that author intended to communicate to us. (I would think that this is a rather uncontroversial claim).

2. One of the implications of item 1 is that we cannot assume that the word "soul" as used by some Hebrew writer living thousands of years ago in another culture, means the same thing as it does to us living in the west in the 21st century (of course, by the same token, we cannot assume that it does not mean the same thing - perhaps it does). We must undertake to intentionally abandon the meaning that our culture brings to the word - what counts is the writer's culture, not ours.

3. Since we need to determine what a Hebrew living thousands of year ago meant by the world "soul", how do we proceed? One approach is to study that culture and see if that yields any answers.

4. Another approach is to "let the Bible tell us what the word means". By this rather vague statement, I mean the following: look at all the uses of this word in the scriptures and attempt to use context to help us understand that word. If, and this is only a hypothetical example, there was some statement like "On that day, Jesus fed 5000 souls with only 2 fish and 5 loaves", we can readily conclude that "soul" refers to a physical person not an immaterail soul (since our "knowledge of the world" tells us that things that eat are not "immaterial").

This point (number 4) may seem rather obvious but I suspect that it needs to be underscored - the meaning that we ascribe to a word has to be consistent with the context in which it is found - the ascribed meaning must result in a "sensible" statement - one that is consistent with what we know (from empirical sources, for example) is true of reality. So if some Biblical says S&G are burning eternally, we should adapt our interpetation of "eternally" (our common sense interpretation) to reflect the known fact about the world that S&G are not burning today. To be fair, in this example, one could argue that "eternal" means forever, and that the text really is describing the fate of the residents, not the physical act of burning. Such an interpretation, however, would need to hold up in the wider context surrounding this text.

5. We cannot look at one text containing the word "soul" and allow that text to "fix" our concept of soul in a manner that causes us to "force" that interpretation into other texts, even if that interpretation were based on following principles 1 through 5. We must make all our conclusions provisional until we have examined all of the relevant texts. I suspect that principle 5 is easy to violate - we are naturally impatient and are inclined to rush to judgement.

6. We must be aware of "metaphorical" possibilities.

7. We must think "globally" - we must engage in the admittedly challenging task of looking at sweeping themes in the scriptures and allow these to influence our interpretations. This is a possibility for "circularity" in such an approach - how can we discern global themes without committing to interpretation of words, a priori? This is a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, if, for example, an overarching theme of scripture is the destruction of "evil" generally (destruction in the "annihilation" sense), then we may legitimately allow this to influence our views on the nature of the soul in particular - since it is tinged with sin (in the unredeemed), this supports the notion that it is not "eternal".

8. This is related to number 7: We must allow "well-established" truths about God to influence our interpretation. So if we believe that it is well established that God is love, we may be inclined to reject an interpretation of an eternal soul (for the unredeemed), since eternal torment is at odds with any sensible concept of love.